Guantanamo suicides confirmed

According to you, prisoners should not be taken in a war without a trial first? This would be radically different from what has been done in past wars.

From the article you posted, one detainee blahbity-blahs ad nauseum of mistreatment by the EVIL U.S., isolation, no phone calls ... blah blah blah.

THEN ... there's this:

Quote:

Q: If not Albania, where do you want to be?

A: Were hoping that the United States government would recognize the mistake that it has done and accept, allow us to enter the United States.

ROTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thomas wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

My question pertained to the circumstances of their capture. Neither your answer nor the link contains information that any prisoner was picked up without any reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Please tell me where the Pentagon published the grounds for suspicion that led to each specific prisoner's capture. I'll read it and get back to you.

Not a serious argument by you.

Thomas wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Many people who are taken prisoner or arrested are later found to be innocent. What does that prove?

That it's not a good idea to treat detainees as irregular enemy combatants before their status is determined by a competent tribunal.

So, according to you, the fact that someone is eventually found innocent proves he shouldn't have been arrested or captured? According to you, prisoners should not be taken in a war without a trial first? This would be radically different from what has been done in past wars.

oralloy wrote:

Merry Andrew wrote:

In some ways this is a lot worse than a suicide bombing. This will get the world's attention and sympathy. The administration has to do something about Gitmo. It's become an international disgrace.

What is disgraceful about holding captured unlawful combatants incommunicado until the end of the war?

We certainly aren't going to let them go free once we've captured them. About the only alternative is to execute them on the spot when they are caught on the battlefield.

It wasn't a "war". It was an invasion by the US of Iraq. For absolutely no defensible reason. There were no WMDs. Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11.

If these people who are detained at Guantanamo have actually committed real crimes then they should be tried (& not in a kangaroo court, a proper, lawful one. Like you would expect if ever facing a court action) & not kept in detention indefinitely.

If they are guilty then what's stopping these trials going ahead?

Most of the detainees are not 'prisoners of war' in any previously accepted sense of the word. They were swept up in indiscriminate dragnets and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is why news reports always refer to them as 'detainees', not 'POWs'.

And Oralloy is really muddying the waters by bringing Iraq into this equation.

The US has done it before in order to circumvent the Geneva Convention. Nothing new here.
........................................
'Disarmed Enemy Forces' (DEF) is a designation for captive enemy soldiers. Most referenced by Dwight D. Eisenhower's redesignation of POW's in post WWII occupied Germany. The purpose of the designation is to circumvent the Geneva Convention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces
...........................
During Vietnam, America tortured, raped and murdered thousands of Vietnamese. We classified these people as neutralists, insurgents, communists and unlawful combatants-anything but prisoners of war.
.
http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/sw/sw44/Tiger-Cages.html

Three men who have been held, without charge, in the US Concentration Camp at Guantanamo Bay have committed suicide by hanging … a very sad state of affairs for their families and those who have compassion … even the instigator of their incarceration George Bush is said to be concerned by their suicide and so he should seeing as he is directly responsible for it.

Now one super idiot, Rear Admiral Harry Harris, Commander of Joint Taskforce at Guantanamo has declared the prisoners took their own lives to further the cause to which they are committed … what the hell is this fool on about,

if they are guilty of a crime or belong to a terrorist organization why haven't they been charged.

The world needs to wake up to this evil US Administration, they are corrupting the world with their barbaric disregard for freedom, decency and democracy

Brandon9000 wrote:

Many people who are taken prisoner or arrested are later found to be innocent. What does that prove?

That it's not a good idea to treat detainees as irregular enemy combatants before their status is determined by a competent tribunal.

Brandon9000 wrote:

According to you, prisoners should not be taken in a war without a trial first? This would be radically different from what has been done in past wars.

So we are speaking now of POW's?

Merry Andrew wrote:

Most of the detainees are not 'prisoners of war' in any previously accepted sense of the word. They were swept up in indiscriminate dragnets and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is why news reports always refer to them as 'detainees', not 'POWs'.

The reason they are not called POWs is because they were not lawful combatants.

Only lawful combatants get to be POWs.

Merry Andrew wrote:

And Oralloy is really muddying the waters by bringing Iraq into this equation.

Care to point out where I brought Iraq into the equation?

No, according to me, people caught by your troops should receive a speedy trial by a competent tribunal. If that tribunal finds a prisoner innocent, it should release them. If it finds him guilty, he stays as a prisoner of war, for the duration of the war, under the rules of the Geneva convention. But imprisoning people indefinitely without some process for petitioning their status is not acceptable.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

My question pertained to the circumstances of their capture. Neither your answer nor the link contains information that any prisoner was picked up without any reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Please tell me where the Pentagon published the grounds for suspicion that led to each specific prisoner's capture. I'll read it and get back to you.

Not a serious argument by you.

In our legal culture, the burden of proof is not on those who think people should be free. It is on those who think people should be in prison. In this case, this means I don't have to prove the inmates of Gitmo are wrongfully imprisoned. The Pentagon has to prove the inmates are rightfully imprisoned. Maybe I should have made this implication explicit.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Many people who are taken prisoner or arrested are later found to be innocent. What does that prove?

That it's not a good idea to treat detainees as irregular enemy combatants before their status is determined by a competent tribunal.

So, according to you, the fact that someone is eventually found innocent proves he shouldn't have been arrested or captured? According to you, prisoners should not be taken in a war without a trial first? This would be radically different from what has been done in past wars.

No, according to me, people caught by your troops should receive a speedy trial by a competent tribunal. If that tribunal finds a prisoner innocent, it should release them. If it finds him guilty, he stays as a prisoner of war, for the duration of the war, under the rules of the Geneva convention. But imprisoning people indefinitely without some process for petitioning their status is not acceptable.

Brandon9000 wrote:

According to you, prisoners should not be taken in a war without a trial first? This would be radically different from what has been done in past wars.

So we are speaking now of POW's?

Sorry, Oralloy. It was msolga who brought that up. My fault.

To be counted as a POW, one has to first be a lawful combatant. And POWs have rights to communicate with the outside world.

Unlawful combatants do not have the right to communicate with the outside world during their detention.

Close, but not exactly: non-combattants can become POW as well. :wink:

Since when have prisoners taken during a war been entitled to a trial?

If they were simply civilians caught in the wrong time at the wrong place, the Geneva convention has always guaranteed that they could petition a competent tribunal to determine their status. I am not saying that the Guantanamo prisoners have a right to a full criminal trial, but they do have a right to a competent tribunal. I don't know the details of how the Geneva convention defines "a competent tribunal";